LPA Profile
What we hold on a single planning authority: appeal behaviour, what they refuse on, which policies they cite, and how current their local plan is. For the national league table and 47-year statistical history, see Council Performance. New: which refusal reasons survive appeal here — measured from real Inspectorate decision letters.
Buckinghamshire Council
GSS E06000060 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register
Official statistics — is development moving through the system?
MHCLG quarterly planning returns (PS1/PS2), last 4 quarters 2025 Q3 to 2026 Q2, and the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. These are the authority's own statutory returns, not our scrape.
Peer ranks compare only unitary authorities with more than 50 decisions in the window, the same floor as the national rank. A rank among peers is the fairer read: types of authority carry very different caseloads.
| Type | Decisions | Approved | In time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major | 155 | 81.3% | 77.8% |
| Minor | 964 | 80.3% | 58.3% |
| Other | 3,413 | 85.9% | — |
| of which householder | 2,855 | 86.3% | 61.9% |
Delivery 85–94%: the authority must publish an action plan. No presumption or buffer consequence.
| Dataset | Publisher | Covers this authority | Loaded | Official source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning application decisions (PS2) | MHCLG | 2020 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (25 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Planning application flow (PS1) | MHCLG | 2020 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (25 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 42,861 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Housing Delivery Test 2025 | MHCLG | 2022/23 to 2024/25 | 18 Aug 2026 | Measurement |
What this authority refuses on
Classified from the reasons in decision notices we hold for this council. Categories can overlap — one reason often engages more than one issue.
| Objection type | Reasons |
|---|---|
| Design, scale or layout | 3 |
| Principle of development | 3 |
| Neighbour amenity | 1 |
| Missing information or evidence | 1 |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 2,601 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 54 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).
(4+ days before target)
(final 3 days)
(after the target)
valid date to decision
This authority is mixed: a substantial share of decisions land after the statutory target, so treat the target as indicative.
Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided
| Submitted (n=2,518) | Validated (n=2,601) | Decided (n=2,601) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 24.3% | 24.1% | 16.1% | |||
| Tue | 21.4% | 21.3% | 21.1% | |||
| Wed | 17.2% | 17.4% | 18.6% | |||
| Thu | 18.4% | 18.2% | 23.4% | |||
| Fri | 18.4% | 18.6% | 19.9% | |||
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more. Submitted is the date the council received the application; validated is the date it was made valid and the clock started. All three columns use the same applications, so they can be read across.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full | 932 | 10% | 26% | 64% | 76 |
| Trees | 478 | 46% | 28% | 26% | 43 |
| Outline | 353 | 24% | 40% | 36% | 63 |
| Telecoms | 206 | 66% | 16% | 18% | 10 |
| Conditions | 138 | 35% | 30% | 36% | 60 |
| Amendment | 107 | 17% | 38% | 45% | 48 |
| Heritage | 69 | 6% | 9% | 86% | 95 |
| Other | 49 | 33% | 59% | 8% | 27 |
By case officer
| Officer | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Brown | 18 | 89% | 11% | 0% | 6 |
| Jonathan Richardson | 17 | 82% | 18% | 0% | 7 |
Officers are not allocated cases at random — a caseload weighted towards majors or contentious sites will run longer than one of householder applications, and that is the case mix rather than the officer. Read this as context for your own case, not as a ranking of individuals.
What "after the target" means. Published data cannot distinguish an agreed extension of time from a target that was simply missed — both appear the same way. This measures when the decision was issued relative to the statutory target, and nothing more. Deadline data comes from the council's own published determination target, captured where its portal exposes it (Idox councils and the London Datahub).
Policies most often cited in refusals
Case officers in our data
| Officer | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Approval rate | Average days | Late | Mostly handles | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Brown | 18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 6 | 0% of 18 | Telecoms Notification (18) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Jonathan Richardson | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 7 | 0% of 17 | Telecoms Notification (17) | Aug 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Bibi Motuel | 8 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 13 | 0% of 8 | Approval of detail Reserved by Condition (4) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Samantha Walker | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 38 | — | Works to trees in Conservation Area (5) | Jun 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Thomas Goldsmith | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 15 | — | Works to trees in Conservation Area (3) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Alice Rolfe | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 36 | — | Certificate of Lawful Use - Proposed (2) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Ana Patriarca | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 36 | — | Works to trees covered by TPO (3) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Ellen Coles | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0% | 56 | — | Certificate of Lawful Use - Proposed (3) | Jun 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Emma Showan | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 16 | — | Non Material Amendment (2) | Aug 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Kaya Allnutt | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 17 | — | Approval of detail Reserved by Condition (2) | Sep 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Kerby MacInnis | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 60 | — | Approval of detail Reserved by Condition (1) | May 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Lucy Dolan | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 6 | — | Approval of detail Reserved by Condition (3) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
Counts come from the applications we have scraped, which is a fraction of each officer's caseload. Approval rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. Late is the share decided after the published determination target, shown only where we hold a target for at least five of that officer's decisions. "Mostly handles" is the application type they appear on most often. Treat as a sample of who is active, not as a performance measure of an individual: a caseload of majors runs longer than one of householder applications. Click a name for the full officer profile.
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Success rate | Average days | Mostly brings | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Openreach | 165 | 165 | 137 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 8 | Telecoms (137) | Jan 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| South Bucks Tree Surgeons Limited | 60 | 39 | 7 | 29 | 0 | 19% | 40 | Trees (58) | Jan 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Authorised Designs Ltd | 41 | 28 | 24 | 4 | 0 | 86% | 73 | Full (31) | Jan 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| DP Architects | 31 | 22 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 94% | 67 | Full (10) | Jan 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| dr design | 28 | 21 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 90% | 52 | Full (16) | Jan 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Home Counties Architectural Services | 24 | 18 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 78% | 58 | Outline (13) | Feb 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Hawkins Eades Associates | 19 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 77% | 66 | Full (8) | Jan 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Alex D Architects Ltd | 19 | 14 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 71% | 68 | Full (12) | Jan 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Fineland Forestry Limited | 19 | 16 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 19% | 48 | Trees (19) | Jan 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Jackson Property Consultancy Limited | 19 | 17 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 88% | 79 | Full (10) | Jan 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| A Ellis Tree Surgery Ltd | 18 | 17 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 41% | 48 | Trees (18) | Feb 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Bell Cornwell LLP | 18 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 67% | 69 | Full (10) | Jan 2026 – Sep 2026 |
Success rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded, so an agent who withdraws rather than takes a refusal will look stronger than the raw numbers suggest. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. "Mostly brings" is the application type the firm appears on most often, which explains much of the difference: tree works and conditions discharge are approved far more often than new build. Counts are from the applications we have scraped, not the firm's full workload.
Development plan
Local Plan for Buckinghamshire
Adoption date not published in the national register · plan period 2045-01-01
Plan documents
National statistics for this authority →
Councils with data on file
On the numbers. The refusal rate, officers and agents here are computed from the applications PlanningCore has collected for this authority — for most councils that is a recent sample rather than the full register, and the date range above tells you which. The appeal overturn rate comes from Planning Inspectorate decisions and covers a much longer period. Use the national statistics page for complete, official volumes.
About this tool: LPA Profile
Deep-dive authority analysis — approval rates by type, refusal reason clustering, appeal overturn rates, average decision times, and strictness rankings.
Use to understand how your LPA behaves. Every council has different tendencies — some are design-focused, some are policy-strict, some are more pragmatic.
MHCLG planning statistics, appeal decision analysis
Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.
Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.